LIVE: Department of State Daily Press Briefing (Dec. 3)

Sean, you want to kick us off? Sure. When I woke up this morning, I wasn't expecting to be asking about this person in the briefing, but South Korea? I saw Kurt, Deputy Secretary Campbell, obviously made some comments just a short time ago. But to follow up on that, you voiced concern. Does the US condemn what President Yun has done in imposing martial law? So look, Sean, to take a step back, we are watching the recent developments in the ROK with grave concern. We are seeking to engage with our Republic of Korea counterparts at every level, both here in the United States and in Seoul. The Secretary has been briefed, and we're keeping him appraised of the developments, as well as monitoring closely what's happening on the ground. Let me also just mention that our alliance with the Republic of Korea is ironclad, and we're fully committed to that. And ultimately here, our hope is, and every hope and expectation is, that any political disputes will be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. OK. I mean, just the grave concern and the rule of law, is it the perspective of the United States that President Yun has been following now? So look, this is an incredibly fluid situation. I'm not going to jump to any immediate conclusions at this point. What I can say is that we are watching these developments with grave concern. We're staying in close, appropriate touch with our ROK counterparts. And I'm sure we'll have more to say as the situation continues to unfold. I just don't want to get ahead of that. Well, I mean, so the rule of law, I mean, the National Assembly has voted now to undo this, to rescind martial law. So from the perspective of the United States, should that stand? Should the martial law be rescinded? So look, every country, of course, has its own rules and laws and procedures. I'm certainly no expert in South Korean law and certainly how the South Korean legislature works and what the ins and outs are of that. But certainly, it is our hope and expectation that the laws and regulations of a particular country are abided by, by that particular country. Does that include the National Assembly vote? That would be the case as well. But again, I'm just not going to get ahead of the process here. Just to put a fun point, it's the National Assembly vote. So basically, you think that the National Assembly voted martial law should be finished. The United States respects that decision by the National Assembly. Sean, I'm not going to. There is obviously a lot happening in South Korea over the course of the day. Ultimately, for us, as I said, we want to see these political disputes resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. And of course, such a vote in the legislature would be consistent with that approach. But we're continuing to remain in close touch with our ROK counterparts. And I'm sure we'll read out any conversations that may or may not take place over the coming days. Just a couple more things. Has there been any conversations directly with President Yun, not necessarily from the Secretary, but with President Yun? I have no conversations to read out with President Yun. We are continuing to seek to engage our ROK counterparts. But I don't have any calls to read out. And maybe taking a step back, President Yun was invited to a state dinner last year. In March, he hosted the Democracy Summit, which of course is a signature issue for the outgoing president, for President Biden. Were there concerns voiced in the past? Does this tick the US continuities by surprise? Or were there concerns voiced in the past? Sean, I'm certainly going to keep private diplomatic conversations as that. I'll keep them private. I think what I can say is that we were not notified of President Yun's announcement in advance. But beyond that, I think the important thing to remember, Sean, is that ultimately at the crux of this is not President Biden, President Yun, these two specific governments. What this is about is the broader strategic relationship and the broader strategic partnership that we have with the Republic of Korea. And that alliance, as I said, is ironclad. There continues to be, in our point of view, a lot of important work that we want to continue to do with the Republic of Korea. This incident, of course, as I said, we are continuing to watch with grave concern. And we will continue to follow developments on the ground very closely. But our commitment to the Republic of Korea and our alliance continues to be strong and ironclad. And as I said, they continue to be a vital partner in the Indo-Pacific. And I'm just not going to get ahead of this. Just one final one, just a little deeper. To put a point on that, the National Assembly vote, do you want President Yun to respect that? Do you want the military to respect that? As you heard me say, Sean, that we want this to be resolved peacefully in accordance with the rule of law. And certainly, the legislature voting to pass something would be consistent with the law of that country, certainly. Daphne, go ahead. You mentioned several times conversations that are taking place. Can you give any more detail on who's having those conversations? I don't. I'm not in a place to get more specific beyond that, beyond just saying we're continuing to seek to engage our counterparts, both here in the United States, but also in Seoul. And should we have any calls or meetings to read out, we'll certainly do that. I have nothing to preview right now. But as I said, the Secretary has been briefed on this, as has been others on our team. And we're continuing to pay attention and monitor the situation closely. Again, I'm going to keep private diplomatic conversations private, as you just heard me say to Sean's question. We're watching these recent developments. We're watching them with grave concern. And we're seeking to engage our counterparts in the ROK. I've got some questions on Lebanon, but I'm like. Well, I'll come back to you, Daphne. Go ahead. Just wondering, the US ambassador to South Korea put out a statement on X, encouraging American citizens in South Korea to monitor local news sources. And that's been, as far as I can tell, the only kind of security alert that's gone out to US citizens. And that came several hours after martial law was declared in the country. Was there a reason for that delay? Is more guidance coming? Well, this is, Shannon, as you know, an incredibly fluid situation. And let me just say broadly that we have no higher priority than the safety and security of our citizens, especially those that are overseas. I don't have any updates on the travel advisory or anything like that to offer from up here. The travel advisor warning for the ROK continues to be a level one, which is exercise normal caution. But that being said, the ambassador is absolutely right in that we would encourage American citizens to enroll in Smart Traveler. That is the best way to stay in touch with the embassy and to stay in touch with the department as the situation develops. And that's the best way to stay up to date on additional information. We also have a 24-7 hotline for US citizens to use in emergencies in which they can get in touch with our embassy in Seoul. We plan to issue regular updates on the situation via the embassy website. And as the ambassador said, we encourage citizens to monitor not just these channels that I mentioned, but updates from local law enforcement and otherwise. And we'll, of course, update our citizens appropriately. And taking out the events, would you typically expect to be notified that an ally as close to South Korea was going to declare martial law ahead of time? So I'm just not going to speculate on what should or may or may not happen in these kinds of situations. What I can just say is that, as it relates to this incident, we were not notified of President Moon's announcement in advance. Just to draw a parallel to Kenya, another government where the leader was honored with a state visit by the Biden administration, and then later saw some allegations of democratic backsliding over the summer. In the State Department's engagement with Kenyan leaders at the time, the State Department said it was encouraging them to honor all constitutional rights, including the right to peaceful assembly. In your conversations with South Korean counterparts, are you reminding them of the right for its citizens to peacefully assemble or other similar human rights? Certainly, that would be a message that we carry with any government in which we have a bilateral relationship. Of course, that would be also true in our engagements with a partner like the Republic of Korea. And as I said to Sean, I'm not going to read out private diplomatic conversations. But we are reiterating again that it is our hope and our expectation that any political dispute be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. Sorry, Nikki. Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. So has the United States received specific threats from North Korea in the past 24 hours or in the past few days? I have no threat assessments analysis to offer as it relates to the DPRK in the context of this. So how does the US assess this surprise declaration? Is that mainly focused on domestic issues? I don't have an assessment to make, Nikki. And as I said to Sean, we are watching these developments. We're watching them with concern. We're seeking to engage our counterparts with the ROK, both here in the United States as well as Seoul. We are also undertaking a number of steps that I laid out to Shannon about ways in which we are supporting American citizens and making information to them available as it relates to this. But beyond that, I don't have any other updates. Again, I will just echo that our hope and expectation is that any political disputes be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. And finally, I know you just spoke, talked about the travel advisory. Talk about the personnel and security posture within the US embassy and with the US military there. Well, we certainly wouldn't speak to some of those things in detail, just given the safety and security of our facilities and our personnel. But I don't have any changes to announce. In terms of how you, it's very notable that you have put a lot of emphasis on the phrase political disputes. I mean, do you see this as basically a political dispute within South Korea? It's not for us to characterize, Tom. What we are attempting to do is continue to gather the facts and continue to gather the circumstances of what's happening on the ground, engage appropriately with our counterparts, both here in the United States and at Seoul, and then monitor and make appropriate adjustments if needed as it relates to our personnel and our citizens, which again, at this point, we've not done. But we've outlined a number of ways in which US citizens can engage with us. Beyond that, really not for us to, I'm not going to speculate or opine on the theory of the case or the reasoning or the decision making here, beyond just saying that it's certainly concerning to us. We're paying very close attention. And that for us, what we want to see is this resolved peacefully. We want to see it resolved in line with rule of law. I mean, President Yoon has very much sort of framed this or presented this as a strategic security issue. And he's talking about the need to eradicate pro-North Korean forces and protect the constitutional democratic order. But it's sort of notable in your statements so far, you haven't reflected that notion of a strategic threat at all. Does that mean you don't share that assessment with him? So look, certainly when it comes to the Korean peninsula, I'm sure that any number of US officials could spend a lot of time talking about the destabilizing force and presence that the DPRK is and the long litany of reckless and destabilizing actions that we've seen the DPRK undertake, not just over the course of this administration, but many years beyond that. As it relates to this incident, though, specifically, it's just not for us to draw any kind of conclusion or to particularly link those kinds of things for us. What we are focused on is assessing the facts, paying close attention to the situation on the ground, making appropriate adjustments, if needed, as it relates to our consular posture. But beyond that, engaging with our ROK counterparts, and then ultimately wanting to see this be resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. Yeah, go ahead. I'm from the Secret Times from South Korea. So under the emergency martial law, if some military action happens, then what is the role of US forces in South Korea? So look, as it relates to defense posture and the posture of our personnel, I know my colleague, Major General Ryder, is gonna be briefing later today, I believe I will leave it to them to speak specifically about DOD personnel and our service members in uniform. As it relates to our diplomatic facilities, as I said to Shannon, there's been no change in our posture. We have outlined a number of ways in which American citizens can stay in touch with us, and we'll offer updates through those channels should we need to. But broadly, I will reiterate again that our alliance to the ROK is ironclad, and we continue to be committed to that partnership. Go ahead. On this? No, I'm kidding. Okay, let me just make sure there's nothing else on the region. Go ahead, Jalil. I have a strong suspicion this is not on the ROK, but I'll humor you. Similar kind of situations. Is this on the ROK or not, Jalil? Yes, it's regarding the martial law in ROK. Okay, go ahead, go ahead. So in the martial law, they have declared one of the reasons for declaring this is because of the internal conflicts and their parliament members' relationship with the anti-state, which they refer to as North Korea, right? So Pakistan also has the same situation. Jalil, this is not on the ROK. I will come back to you to ask your off-topic question. Okay. Go ahead, Jackson. Thanks, Vedant. So does South Korea's deflation affect U.S. assistance to the country? Sorry, can you repeat that? Does what's happening in South Korea, does it affect your assistance to the country? So as I said a number of times at this point, our alliance with the ROK is ironclad. Our partnership to the ROK, we remain committed to that. The emphasis that this administration particularly has put in strengthening our partnerships and alliances in the Indo-Pacific, that has not or does not change either. This continues to be a priority for us. On this specific situation, as I said, we are monitoring the situation. We continue to have grave concerns over some of these developments, but ultimately it's our hope and expectation that this is resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. And will the martial law matter affect the fact that the ROK falls under our nuclear umbrella? I'm just not gonna speculate on what the causation there could be. Anything else on the read? Go ahead, yeah. This is one of the hypothetical situations, but if this martial law situation continues and ends quickly, then do you think that this will affect a coordination between the two allies on North Korea and other issues? So that is certainly a hypothetical question. So let me just say this, that again, our commitment to the ROK is ironclad, our alliance to them and the partnership that we have with them. And the emphasis that we over these past years have placed on strengthening our ties in the Indo-Pacific, including with partners like the ROK. As I said, there continue to be a number of key priorities between us in our bilateral relationship. Certainly at the crux of that is the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That has not changed. And we continue to have partnerships with them on a number of other key areas. I do not expect, I don't have anything to preview on how that may or may not change. What we're focused on right now is continuing to gather the facts, monitor the situations on the ground, and expect that this to be fully resolved peacefully and in consistent with the rule of law. Go ahead. Thanks. Let me get, I'll come back to you, Sean. Yeah, go ahead. Just follow up on your Nike's question. You said that you have no threat assessment. So you don't see any changes of North Korean forces posture in the last few hours? I wouldn't speak to that kind of assessment from up here. Sean, go ahead. Just briefly, to follow up on the previous question. South Korea, obviously, in recent weeks has been speaking a lot with Ukraine about arms, a lot of the situation with North Korean troops. I mean, obviously, it's just been a few hours, but is it the U.S. assumption that that type of dialogue can continue between Ukraine and South Korea, or is this gonna be- Sean, I think you kind of answered your own question. This being just a couple of hours old, I'm not gonna draw any conclusions as it relates to broader foreign policy implications on this incident. Leah, go ahead in the back. Has the U.S. been in contact with Ukraine or any other allies? So we're continuing to, I don't have any specific calls to read out, but of course, part of this is maintaining close communication with other regional partners as well. I don't have any specific call to read out, but that's, of course, a priority for us as well. In the back, in the red. Yeah, go ahead. I have a question about China. Is it related to- Gallium and germanium bans. Were you anticipating the export ban from China? Is there any strategy to deal with it in the coming future as it's both dual use, military and civil application? Let me see if I can have the team follow up with you specifically on that one. Okay, I'll come back to you, Zahid. Did you have something on- Then I'll come to you, Zahid. Go ahead. I'm from South Korea. You said repeatedly you hope all political disputes will be resolved peacefully. Then the Department of State believes that President U.N. declared a martial law due to political reasons. I'm not here to offer an assessment or to draw a conclusion on the reasoning behind such a decision. That's certainly not for us to speak to. What I'm speaking about is what the United States efforts have been as it relates to this, which as I said, have been one, trying to gather as much information as we can, continuing to monitor the situation on the ground. We are monitoring these developments, as I said, with serious and grave concern. On top of that, we're seeking to engage our counterparts both here in the United States, but also in Seoul as it relates to this, and ultimately want to see this resolved peacefully and in accordance with the rule of law. I'm not going to make an assessment or a conclusion on the reasoning here. And when did the U.S. government receive the notification from the South Korean government about the martial law? As I said, I think in answering Sean or Daphne's question, we were not notified in advance as it relates to President U.N.'s announcement. Yeah, not in advance, but when? When did you get the notification? We were not notified in advance. Beyond that, I'm not going to get into the specifics of our private diplomatic conversations, but we were not notified in advance of President U.N.'s announcement. So the U.S. government also noticed the martial law from the news? We were not notified in advance. Go ahead, Said. I'm changing topics. Sure. Talk about Gaza. Yeah. Well, according to the New York Times, Israel is building a base or bases in central Gaza, which is an indication that they are there to stay. Do you have any comment on that? Is the administration able to do anything to undo this or to make sure that this does not happen? Said, I've seen those reports, and I will leave it to the Israeli government to speak to their veracity or not. Certainly it would not be for us to speak to, but just on that, Said, if they are true, certainly they would be inconsistent with a number of the principles that Secretary Blinken laid out in Tokyo about a year ago, what our viewpoint is when it comes to the region and the future of the region. So firstly, that would most certainly be the case. And I think key among them is that there cannot be any reduction in territory of Gaza. Beyond that, there can also be no forced displacement of Palestinians from their home, and they must be allowed to return safely to their homes in the north as soon as the conditions allow. So first and foremost, should this be true, it would be inconsistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo. I will leave it to the Israeli government to speak to that reporting. It's really not for us to speak to. But certainly you have the means to determine the veracity of these claims, of these reports. I don't have an- You have to wait for the Israelis to tell you that you are building bases? I don't have an assessment to offer from up here, Said. The United States is involved in this process. Said, as you so know, we don't have any boots on the ground in Gaza. Beyond that, I don't have... It's certainly not for us to speak to on the veracity of these. If they are, it would most certainly be inconsistent with what we want to see for the region, and certainly would be inconsistent with the principles that the Secretary laid out in Tokyo. And should they be true, it's certainly something that we will raise quite seriously with our partners in Israel. But I don't have an assessment to offer, Said. This must be one of the most surveilled pieces of real estate anywhere in the world, especially by the United States and by its allies. You can't tell me you don't know what's going on in Gaza. Said, we, of course, know what's going on in Gaza. We, of course, are paying very close attention to what's happening in Gaza as it relates to this particular piece of reporting, which I'll just note comes from a media outlet. It's not any kind of government-to-government announcement or government-to-engagement. I don't have anything else to offer beyond what I just said. Well, I tell you that Volker Terp, the chief human rights person, human rights chief, Volker Terp, said this is the darkest moment in northern Gaza. He's saying that what is unfolding is a total disaster. It's a total catastrophe. And he's talking about, you know, killing and displacement and destruction, lack of food, starvation, you know, all these things, all the trimmings that are happening in Gaza. And he's calling on you as, you know, a signatory to the Geneva Convention, he's calling on everybody, as a matter of fact, to do something that you are obligated under the Geneva Convention to actually do something. Why are you not doing it? We are deeply concerned about the humanitarian toll in Gaza and the high number of civilian casualties. And we are continuing to press Israel to maximize and streamline the existing crossings and open more crossings to help further address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. On top of that, we want to see an end to the war. And that's what we're trying to accomplish. And that's what we have continued to be engaged on for quite some time now. And we'll continue to work at this until the very last hour of this administration. Yeah, but being concerned and doing something, I'm sure there's a great deal of concern and there's a great deal of anger and frustration in this building. But, you know, we don't see any action. Respectfully, respectfully, respectfully, Said, I would take issue with that. Because over the course of this, over the course of the totality of this conflict, when we have seen things that are inconsistent with what we want to see for the region, when we have seen things that are inconsistent for what we want to see for Gaza, when we've seen things that are inconsistent with what we want to see for the Palestinian people, we've said so. Sometimes we've said so publicly. Every time we've said so privately and we have raised this directly with our partners in Israel. And I needn't point further than some of the specific areas in which we have asked for remediation when it comes to humanitarian aid. I would point back to the first days of the administration in which it was the work of this secretary that really helped unlock the initial influx of humanitarian aid. And in the ensuing months since then, it is the work of this department and others across the interagency that has continued to push for the use of additional border crossings, the use of additional tactics to further enhance humanitarian aid. We have taken appropriate action. We'll continue to take action, as I said, till the very last hour of this administration when we see things that are inconsistent with what we want to see. So let me just, on this point, we saw the statement issued by Matt about the meeting with Dermer, between the Secretary of State Blinken and Dermer in which he says, we talked about the need to end the war and then the need to get the hostages home and so on. Now, at the same time, earlier in the day, we saw a statement by the president-elect basically assisting to wipe out and make whatever happened thus far in Gaza to seem like a picnic. Those are my words, my true words. But does that give you more incentive to do more things? And does it give it a sense of urgency to you that you've got to do something and do it quick before the 20th of January? What we are focused on, Saeed, is we are focused on using every ounce of energy and every time that we have available to bring this war to a close, everything we can to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza and everything we can to make sure that the hostages can return home and bring this war to a conclusion and start having a serious diplomatic conversation of what we want the region to look like the day after. That's what we're focused on. There's only one president at a time. I will leave it to you all to ask the tough questions of the next administration starting on the 21st. But beyond that, I'm really not a spokesperson for them. So I will let them clarify whatever thoughts they have about the Middle East. No, I'm not talking about the coming administration. I'm saying that that gives you, you know, that makes you feel urgent. We are continuing to operate with the utmost urgency. And I think there's not really a public statement, whether it's from a former president or otherwise, that is going to impact that because we are already operating at maximum urgency. My last question. I asked Matt yesterday on, you know, the killing of the World Central Kitchen employee. And yesterday, that was happening. That happened on Sunday. Yesterday, they killed, you know, one aid worker from Save the Children. I mean, if this had happened anywhere in the world, if it was happening in Ukraine or anywhere in Africa, where would it be? You would be outraged. Why is there no, not even a whimper, not even an outrage? We are outraged. Not even a statement saying, you can, Jim, this is the- Sayeed, we are outraged and we are wanting more information about this incident. We are concerned by that reported strike that killed the Save the Children aid worker in Khan Yunis. Our view is and has been that humanitarian workers must be protected so they can safely deliver aid, whether it be in Gaza or whether it be truly anywhere in the world. And as I said, the IDF needs to provide additional information about this incident. I'm not going to draw any conclusion on it until we have seen more information and are able to gather the facts. But broadly, we urge Israel to thoroughly and transparently investigate actions like these and take appropriate action in their system, including ensuring accountability for any violations within their system. Do you condemn the killing of aid workers by the Israeli army? Sayeed, we, of course, condemn the intentional- We condemn the intentional killing of aid workers anywhere. As it relates to this specific incident, we have asked for additional information. I'm not going to draw any conclusion until that has happened. But of course, we are deeply concerned and troubled by this reported strike. And as you've heard me say, we think that aid workers need to be able to do their work, not just in Gaza, but in other places in the world. Jenny's impatiently had her hand up. Go ahead. Is the new channel of the civilian harm mechanism that you guys established with Israelis met yet? It is not. When will that be? I'm not going to offer a timeline on that. That's something that we're going to continue to work on. Matt suggested it would be in early December. Is that still what you're trying- Well, it's December 3rd. So again, I'm not going to put a timeline on it. But we expect that to happen sometime soon. But I don't have a specific date to offer. And then there was a meeting on humanitarian aid for Gaza and Cairo yesterday. Who represented the US? We did have representation from the United States and the State Department. I will have to double-check the specific names. But I'm happy to check and get back to you. But we did participate in that forum. Can I have a couple on Lebanon? Any? OK, great. Why don't we- Where do you assess the ceasefire standing now? Do you still see it as being largely successful? We do. Look, the ceasefire writ large is the result of intensive diplomatic effort over many months by the United States, as well as partners in France working closely with Israel and Lebanon. Our hope and our expectation is that parties are going to abide by their commitments and that the ceasefire will continue to be implemented. We are continuing to support that implementation. We're working on continuing to build a robust mechanism that assesses the parties in addressing violations. We're working to support the LAF and continuing to work closely with UNIFIL. And we think that kind of work is essential to that. Nine Lebanese were killed yesterday in Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Do you see this as a violation of the ceasefire? So there is a mechanism in place to address and speak to specific violations. On this specific incident, I don't know enough about the specific activity that took place to offer any kind of assessment. But in President Biden's remarks last week, he was pretty clear, and you saw the Secretary echo that, if there is a direct threat to Israel's security, Israel has a right to defend themselves. But again, on this specific incident, I just don't have any assessment to offer. Do the Israelis have the right, under the agreement or a side agreement with the United States, to adjudicate their own assessments of violations and then act accordingly? Or is it only direct threats? So I'm just not going to... Would projectiles launched hours earlier? So on this specific incident, I'm just not going to offer an assessment or draw some kind of conclusion on what would fall in the parameters of a violation or not. I think you saw the President speak to this pretty clearly, that if there's a direct threat to Israel's security, Israel has a right to defend themselves. If Hezbollah or anyone else breaks the deal or poses a direct threat to Israel, then Israel certainly retains the right to self-defense, consistent with international law, consistent with what any country would do if they're facing a terrorist group that was pledged to their destruction. But again, on this specific incident, I just don't have an assessment to offer on how it necessarily comports with that. And then last question, is the mechanism fully operational at this point? That is my understanding. Go ahead. Can the United States fire a deal with Hezbollah that warns that it did not mean the war was over? What's your assessment of those comments? I'm not going to interpret the Prime Minister's comments. I will leave it to you all to ask his office to do that. From our perspective, we are doing everything we can to make sure that the parties abide by the ceasefire. As I said in response to Jenny's question, we want the ceasefire to be implemented. It has been a product of months and months and months of work between the United States and France and other partners, and we are committed to supporting that. Of course, as part of that caveat, as I said to Jenny, that if Israel's security is threatened, it has the right to defend itself. Hezbollah, at the end of the day, continues to be a terrorist organization, and we want to make sure that they can no longer act upon a springboard of terrorism onto the Israeli people. But I will leave it to the Prime Minister's office to offer any context to his comments. And you said that Hezbollah had seriously violated the accord on Monday and that Israel had subsequently attacked more than 20 targets across Lebanon in retaliation. Is it Washington's assessment that Hezbollah had seriously violated the accord? So there is a mechanism in place to address possible violations. As I said to Jenny, I don't have an assessment to offer on specific incidents. Our point of view is that we believe the ceasefire continues to be largely holding in place. As I said, there is mechanisms to address questions or to address violations. That is up and running. But beyond that, what we are focused on is working with partners to make sure that this ceasefire is continuing to hold and can continue to be implemented. Did Israel coordinate with the U.S. at all ahead of this retaliation? I don't have any assessment to offer on military action. As part of the accord, would Israel have to notify you that it was going to retaliate? Again, on the specific military pieces, I will let colleagues at the Pentagon speak to the ins and outs of that. Michel, go ahead. Did you pressure Israel yesterday not to strike Beirut, as the Israelis have said? Michel, I'm not going to speak to private diplomatic conversations. Our perspective continues to be that all parties need to do everything possible to abide by the ceasefire. We'll continue to receive and assess reports of alleged violations of the ceasefire through the monitoring and implementation mechanism. And we are committed to helping the parties implement the ceasefire, as I said, through this robust monitoring mechanism that we hope will address such violations. Is the U.S. preparing to provide military aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces to implement the agreement? I don't have any specific announcements to preview, Michel, beyond just saying the United States, of course, has been one of the largest supporters of the LAF over many, many years, but I don't have any specific announcement to preview or share. On Syria, if you don't mind. Yesterday, Matt said that the U.S. didn't support the opposition, their military movement. Today, the SDF, who are supported by the U.S., is expanding its influence in Deir ez-Zor province and expanding their territories, too. Is the U.S. providing any support to them? Michel, what the events of the past 48 to 72 hours underscore is that this conflict can only end once and for all through what we view as a political settlement that's consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. We think it's time to reinvigorate that political process, and we think that the only path forward is a UN-facilitated one. And certainly, our view is that certainly no country should be taking advantage of this particular incident, and really, we are engaging with partners and allies with a consistent message, is that any who sort of have power or who have influence over some of these actors is do everything that we can to continue to stress de-escalation. But the SDF, who are supported by the U.S., are expanding their territories, and they are part of the military action in northeastern Syria today. So again, our viewpoint continues to be that the only solution here is one that is Syrian-led, Syrian-inclusive, and reflective of the will of the Syrian people, and that would be one that is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. And finally, on Iraq, do you have any updates on the waiver on Iraq to import energy from Iran? Sure. On November 7th, the department did renew Iraq's electricity waiver for the 23rd time since 2018. It was done so for an additional 120 days. We remain committed to reducing Iran's malign influence in the region. Our viewpoint is that a stable, sovereign, and secure Iraq is critical to these efforts. Since 2018, as you know, this started in the previous administration. The State Department has permitted Iraq to purchase Iranian electricity while Iraq continues to develop its own domestic generation capacity. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah. Do you see any progress from the Iraqi government to step up towards energy independence from Iran? Because there are reports that even Iran gets a billion a year from Iraq since Prime Minister Sudan took office in 2022. I think I've spoken a little bit about this before, DR, and I don't have any updated assessment to offer. We have seen some progress and steps in the right direction by the Iraqi government as it relates to their own sovereign domestic energy production. That continues to be the case. I don't have a different assessment to offer today. Two more questions from Syria. Go ahead. Yeah. Today, the Iraqi prime minister office issued a statement and they said that Iraq is not and monitoring the situation in Syria, but they will accept all efforts to preserve the security in Syria and in Iraq. How do you see the statement from Iraqi prime minister? So I'm not going to draw any particular conclusions from that statement, DR. What we are telling partners in the region, what we continue to echo is that from our viewpoint, from the United States viewpoint, the only solution is a UN-led one that is consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. I expect that there is actually going to be a UN Security Council resolution on this later today. And we want every country doing everything they can in their power to deescalate. We don't want to see tensions escalate at such a fraught time. And lastly, on humanitarian situation in Syria. So far, there are about 200,000 Kurds, Christians, and other people, minority displaced. And a part of them, they went to the SDF areas and which you are part of. And I've learned that the SDF and Syrian Economic Administration have reached out to you and they are seeking help to addressing the humanitarian situation in Syria. Are you offering any support in this regard? So look, offering appropriate humanitarian assistance is of course vital. And we think that is critically important. We have, for many, many years now, been an important and robust provider of humanitarian aid to those impacted regions. I don't have any specific announcement to offer as it relates to today, but we are just continuing to monitor the situation and we'll take appropriate steps if we need to. Willie, go ahead. Thanks, Vedant. Earlier, you mentioned that under the ceasefire, Israel retains a right to defend itself. Does that same right transfer to the Lebanese state? I say this because Israel's new defense minister today said that if it fails to deter Hezbollah from attacking it, the Lebanese government will not be immune from attacks in the future. So I think you're asking me to, again, speak to a hypothetical, which I'm just not going to engage on. Is there something in the ceasefire that says, if attacked, the Lebanese state has the right to defend itself? So at the crux of this, at the crux of this long conversation that we've been having, as it relates to Northern Israel and Southern Lebanon, has been UN Security Council Resolution 1701. And at the center of that is this notion that Hezbollah will withdraw to north of the Litani River and that, likewise, Israel will return to south of the blue line back to Israel. Again, but I think to just pressure test your question a little bit, I don't think that there is a desire from Israel to invade or attack the Lebanese people. What we're talking about is specific acts or incidents of self-defense. Again, I'm not going to- It still killed 12 Lebanese. Certainly, I'm not trying to minimize the impact on Lebanese civilians, but I'm not, I just don't have an assessment to offer on some of these specific incidents beyond just saying that, as it relates to the ceasefire, there is a mechanism in place to address violations. And ultimately, at the crux of this, the Israel, if it is threatened or if its security is violated by Hezbollah, by a terrorist group, they certainly have the right to their self-defense. But it's a chicken and the egg. Does Lebanon then not retain that same right? Okay, let's say Israel is the aggressor. Again, we are going down a slippery slope of hypotheticals. We are- It's not that hypothetical. It is a bit of a hypothetical, because on one side, we are talking about a terrorist group that as part of its mission statement, has the destruction of Israel stamped at the center of that. And on the other side, you have Israel, a sovereign democratic state- That has invaded Lebanon three times. Part of what we are talking about and part of this ceasefire is for Israel, at the crux of 1701, is to withdraw to south of the blue line. I think the situations are not totally comparable, but I really appreciate you trying. Go ahead. Thank you, Melvin. Yeah. A quick little segue to this engagement on Ukraine. I know I have a lot of questions to cover. Sure. You guys signed an MOU today with the Ukrainian foreign minister, which will provide 825 million in energy assistance to Ukraine. Can you just clear up in what form it's going to be delivered? And where is it coming from? Is it part of the FAA or USAID budget? I'm asking because the Ukrainian side is asking for providing more additional air defense systems to secure their energy sites rather than just assistance for dealing with the results of Russian attacks. So in terms of the budgetary line item, Alex, I don't have a specific steer for you, but of course, what I would say is that this is another long step of ours in doing what we can to make sure that Ukraine can continue to stand on its own two feet. Ultimately, the end goal here, Alex, you've heard the secretary talk a lot about this, is making sure that Ukraine can stand on its own militarily, economically, and it can continue to grow and be part of these Euro-Atlantic institutions. But I'm happy to check specifically if we have some specifics on the budgetary information on that. Thank you, sir. In terms of delivering that, is there any sense that there's time ticking here? Sorry, can you repeat that? The time ticking here, you have less time to deliver 825 million energy. We continue to work around the clock to do everything we can to find ways in which we continue to support Ukraine. As you probably saw, Alex, that as part of the surge in the security assistance that the president announced in late September, the U.S. is providing another significant package of urgently needed weapons and equipment to our Ukrainian partners as they continue to defend against Russia. This additional assistance is being provided under presidential drawdown authority, and it's valued at approximately 725 million. It includes a whole litany of systems and capabilities that we think will continue to help Ukraine defend itself. Thank you. Moving to the South Caucasus, Azerbaijan arrested a living human rights defender, I would say one of the last remaining defenders, Rufat Safarov, today, and they reported he was supposed to be Secretary of Human Rights before defendants have all been next week. So do you have any reaction to this? We're deeply concerned by reports that human rights defender Rufat Safarov has been detained in Azerbaijan. We're closely monitoring this case. It's imperative that human rights defenders everywhere are able to conduct their work without hindrance and free and fear from retribution. And we continue to urge Azerbaijan to release all of those unjustly detained and to cease its crackdown on civil society, including human rights defenders and journalists. Any sense when you end that without a trailer to secure political prisoners released during the conflict before that and after that has emboldened the regime? So I'm just not going to speculate on the decision making here or what may or may not have caused this, Alex. What I will just echo is that we're urging Azerbaijan to release all those unjustly detained and cease its crackdown on civil society, including human rights defenders and journalists. Thank you. I find that Georgia has a volatile reaction to their brutal attacks on protesters during the past 24 hours. And before that, how were they handling this? Well, Alex, we condemn the excessive use of force by police against Georgian protesters seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression, including their ability to peacefully protest. The U.S. is deeply concerned by reports of the detention and assault of journalists and recognizing that a free press, we believe, is a cornerstone of a democratic system. We're continuing to call on all sides to ensure protests remain peaceful. And we are urging the Georgian government to strictly respect the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. But basically, all sides without talking... I'm going to work the room a little bit, Alex. You've got three. Go ahead. Go ahead. When is the right time for you to impose the sanctions on the person who has organized this massive, massive violence in Georgia? And I'm speaking about the founder of the Georgian Dream Party. So, look, I'm not going to preview or speculate on any actions the U.S. may or may not take. What I can say, what we're focused on right now is engaging with the Georgian government and emphasizing to them the strong responsibility they have to respect the rule of law, respect human rights, and respect fundamental freedoms, which we continue to believe are the foundation of Georgia's own Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Go ahead. Thank you so much. In Bangladesh, British MPs Barry Gardner and Preeti Patel released concerns in the UK Parliament over violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, highlighting over 2,000 violent incidents and calling for urgent government discussion with Bangladeshi authorities to ensure protection, law and order, and freedom of religion for minority communities. Are there any plans to address this concern through diplomatic and policy measurement from U.S.? So we are consistent with every government in which we have a relationship with. We are clear that there needs to be the respect of fundamental freedoms. There needs to be respect of religious freedom and basic human rights. Any kind of protest should be and need to be peaceful, and that any kind of crackdown, not even crackdown, that governments need to respect the rule of law, they need to respect basic human rights as part of that. And that's something we'll continue to emphasize. And definitely, you already know that Chinmoy Das Brahmachari, the leader of ISKCON in Bangladesh, also Tulsi Gaward, proposed director of U.S. National Intelligence, is the member of ISKCON. The Chinmoy Das is illegally arrested, put in the jail, and no lawyer in Bangladesh willing to stand for Chinmoy Krishna Das because his lawyer was beaten and sent to the hospital. Will you take any action on that? So I don't have the details surrounding that case, but again, we continue to stress and emphasize that even those who are in detention need to be afforded appropriate representation and need to be treated with basic fundamental freedoms and human rights. And finally- In the back, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. A couple of questions on Gaza. Number one, reports are circulating that Hamas and Fatah are closing in on an agreement to select the committee of supposedly politically independent technocrats to administer Gaza. Number one, has the U.S. been coordinating with Ramallah on that process? Does it take a position on this process? And was it discussed between Secretary Blinken and Minister Durham yesterday? So I don't have any further readouts or perspectives to offer from the Secretary's engagement beyond that. I've seen the reporting as it relates to this announcement, but don't have anything to offer beyond just saying, obviously for the United States, Hamas continuing to play a role in any kind of governance form in Gaza would certainly be deeply troubling for us. The U.S. has not been looped into this? I just don't have any diplomatic conversations to read out. One other question on humanitarian aid. Yeah. The U.N. has put the onus on Israel to clamp down on the looting that's been happening with the trucks going into Gaza. Meanwhile, the U.N. also says that it cannot allow Israel to escort those trucks because it's one of the warring parties, which is a complete catch 22. How, in the U.S.'s opinion, should Israel go about trying to stamp out the looting of the humanitarian trucks? And again, I guess you already answered the question, but has the U.S. been engaged with Israel in guidance and support in trying to find a solution? So we've been engaged on this issue, not just with Israel, but other important regional partners as well, including, of course, the United Nations. It is a serious area of concern, and it's an area of concern where we continue to want to see more happen and more diligence given, not just, of course, from Israel's perspective, but also from the United Nations as well. Can the U.S. provide a solution to it? This is something we're continuing to engage on with partners. All right. Thanks, everybody.